Connect with us
tesla logo tesla logo

News

Tesla hit with $1.27M subrogation claim from State Farm in 2020 house fire

Published

on

Tesla has been hit with a $1.27 million subrogation claim filed by State Farm related to a house fire that heavily damaged a home in Carmel, Indiana in 2020. State Farm claims that a “defect in design or manufacture” of the couple’s 2016 Tesla Model S started the fire, and is seeking the $1.27 million payout, along with any “other further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.”

On February 17, 2020, two years and one day before the case was filed by State Farm, a fire erupted at the residence of the Sencaj’s in Carmel, Indiana. The suit says the family drove the Model S around that day to complete various errands, later returning home and attaching the vehicle to the charger installed in the garage. State Farm says in the suit, “Investigation into the origin and cause of the Fire by STATE FARM, and experts retained to investigate on its behalf, revealed the Fire originated at the Tesla and was caused by a defective condition of the vehicle, which was present when the vehicle was placed into the stream of commerce by Defendant Tesla.”

The insurance firm then added, “Due to a defect in design or manufacture, upon information and belief, the Tesla vehicle’s electrical system failed, causing an electrical condition which ignited combustibles and resulted in the Fire.”

State Farm was obligated to pay approximately $1,271,702.26 to the Sencaj family “for fire-related damage to the Sencaj residence and its contents, additional living expenses incurred by the Sencaj family, and fire damage to the vehicles,” the documents say, according to RDN.

Subrogation is a legal term for a right held by insurance carriers to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured.

Advertisement

The suit aims to find Tesla negligent in one of many terms, most of which have to do with the design, manufacturing, and assembly of components, battery packs, cells, or other related parts. State Farm says there are at least twenty ways Tesla showed negligence. The actions stem from negligence through its employees, agents, and/or representatives, and directly was negligent by letting an “unreasonably dangerous and defective” vehicle into the stream of commerce.

State Farm is seeking $1,271,702.26 and “other further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.”

Case No. 2022-CV-00342, State Farm vs. Tesla, Inc, is in the U.S. District Court of Indiana, Southern District is available below.

State Farm v Tesla by Joey Klender on Scribd

Advertisement

I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Elon Musk

Rivian is suing Ohio for a direct sales ban, and it lists Tesla as getting favoritism

“…the Legislature enacted a special provision for Tesla that not only permitted Tesla to continue selling vehicles from two dealerships it already had in the state, but also to sell vehicles from an additional dealership. This special provision does not apply to Rivian.”

Published

on

Credit: Teslarati

Rivian is suing the State of Ohio’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles because it will not allow the automaker to sell vehicles directly to customers.

Direct sales are enabled for Tesla in the state, however, and Rivian, a rival of the Musk-headed company, says the EV leader is getting favoritism because it is allowed to use direct sales.

Calling the direct sales ban “irrational in the extreme,” according to the Verge, which first reported on the lawsuit, Rivian claims Ohio is putting money ahead of what is best for car buyers:

“Ohio’s prohibition is pure economic protectionism for the benefit of Ohio’s existing auto dealers, putting their profits ahead of consumers.”

Direct sales are used to sell vehicles at a fixed price to consumers without using the traditional dealership model. Tesla does not allow dealerships to be bought like franchises.

Advertisement

The company owns all of its showrooms, and it has set prices on its cars. Consumers traditionally cite car negotiations as one of the most stressful activities; Tesla has always avoided it.

In Ohio, it is allowed to sell directly to customers who want to buy its products, but Rivian is not allowed as of now. This suit aims to change that.

It said:

“In 2014, the Ohio Legislature enacted a bill providing that the Ohio Registrar of Motor Vehicles shall deny a motor vehicle dealers’ license—which is required to sell vehicles in Ohio—to anyone who is “a manufacturer, or a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliated entity of a manufacturer, applying for a license to sell or lease new or used motor vehicles at retail.” R.C. 4517.12(A)(11). At the same time, the Legislature enacted a special provision for Tesla that not only permitted Tesla to continue selling vehicles from two dealerships it already had in the state, but also to sell vehicles from an additional dealership. This special provision does not apply to Rivian. As a result, Ohioans seeking to purchase Rivian vehicles must do so through Rivian’s dealer-licensed locations in other states.”

Rivian said in the complaint that it does not claim that Ohio’s provision for Tesla is unconstitutional. However, it does argue that the prohibition of direct sales is unconstitutional as applied to Rivian.

Advertisement

Therefore, it believes it should be able to sell directly to consumers in Ohio as Tesla can.

The case is Case No. 2:25-cv-858, Rivian, LLC, vs. Charles L Norman, Registrar of Motor Vehicles of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla engineer explains why Elon Musk deserves new pay package

“When Elon is motivated, it also motivates us, especially in this fork of humanity. I would not be staying in Tesla this long unless he is still leading.”

Published

on

Elon Musk giving YouTube tech reviewer Marques Brownlee a tour of the Fremont factory. (Credit: MKBHD/YouTube)

A Tesla engineer took to X to explain why he believes Elon Musk deserved the new 96 million share, $29 billion pay package that the company awarded to him yesterday.

Yun-Ta Tsai, a Senior Staff Engineer in the Autopilot program at Tesla, has worked at the company for five years. He has been in his current position for two years and three months.

Tesla rewards CEO Elon Musk with massive, restricted stock package

Tsai posted a lengthy statement in response to Tesla announcing its new pay package for Musk, which the company’s Board of Directors announced yesterday. He was fully in support of his boss getting paid, especially considering Musk “came to work every day” without being paid for eight years.

Tsai said:

Advertisement

“8 years without pay, but Elon still came to work everyday despite hitting all the milestones.

Most founders, even being paid much better, would simply abandon ships or being “zucked”.

I often joked my annual comp was higher than Elon but it was true.

When Elon is motivated, it also motivates us, especially in this fork of humanity. I would not be staying in Tesla this long unless he is still leading.

Hopefully Elon gets his first paycheck soon after 8 years of grinding in hell. It is time.”

Advertisement

It’s no secret that Musk has the reputation of someone who is incredibly driven, motivated, and determined to come through on his personal and professional goals. In times of need at the company, Musk sleeps at the office and works seven days a week.

Recently, it came to the surface that he nearly missed his brother’s wedding years ago because of work.

Musk’s attitude toward work is what has made Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and other entities so successful.

Musk’s new pay package

Tesla announced the new pay package for Musk yesterday, under the following terms:

  • 96 million restricted shares of stock, subject to Elon paying a purchase price upon meeting a two-year vesting term, to be delivered after receipt of antitrust regulatory approval
  • The purchase price will be equal to the split-adjusted exercise price of the stock options awarded to Elon under the 2018 CEO Performance Award ($23.34 per share)
  • A requirement that Elon serve continuously in a senior leadership role at Tesla during the two-year vesting term
  • A pledging allowance to cover tax payments or the purchase price
  • A mandatory holding period of five years from the grant date, except to cover tax payments or the purchase price (with any sales for such purposes to be conducted through an orderly disposition in coordination with Tesla); and
  • If the Delaware courts fully reinstate the 2018 CEO Performance Award, this interim award will be forfeited or returned or a portion of the 2018 CEO Performance Award will be forfeited. To put it simply, there cannot be any “double dip.” Elon will not be able to keep this new award in addition to the options he will be awarded under the 2018 CEO Performance Award, should the courts rule in our favor

The board added a statement that said it believed now would be an ideal time “to take decisive action to recognize the extraordinary value that Elon created for Tesla shareholders.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla Cybertruck leftovers are the main course at the Supercharger Diner

Tesla is using recycled steel from Cybertruck manufacturing for the Supercharger Diner in Los Angeles.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Cybertruck panels that are leftover from manufacturing became the main course at the Supercharger Diner, contributing to the futuristic restaurant’s unique exterior design.

The Supercharger Diner was an idea of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s in 2018, and in July 2025, it officially opened for business, serving a variety of interesting dishes in a futuristic setting that pays homage to the 1950s restaurant experience.

The design of the Diner is what truly sets it apart: it is reminiscent of the stainless exterior that Tesla used for the Cybertruck. It turns out that’s exactly what it is.

tesla diner supercharger in los angeles california at night

Credit: Tesla

Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen revealed in an interview with Tesla Owners Club Austria that the company used recycled panels from Cybertruck manufacturing as siding on the epic diner.

Here’s what he said:

Tesla sourced its stainless steel for the exoskeleton of the Cybertruck from Steel Dynamics Inc. and its plant in Sinton, Texas. The company confirmed this through various outlets, including exhibit descriptions at the Petersen Automotive Museum. The steel is refined through a third party before it is used.

Credit: Cybertruck Owners Club

It also uses the same steel for SpaceX Starship.

It’s pretty interesting that Tesla chose to use the stainless steel for the exterior of the diner in Los Angeles, but it also makes sense considering how durable it has proven to be.

Continue Reading

Trending